Marallo et al v. Petitclerc et al
CONSOLIDATION ORDER adding 8:07-CV-63 as a member case, staying all action until 8/31/07Status Report due by 8/31/2007.. Signed by Judge Randolph F. Treece on 6/14/07. (tab)
Marallo et al v. Petitclerc et al
Page 1 of 5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK EILEEN MARALLO, individually and as Executrix of the Estate of Walter James Giveans a/k/a Walter J. Giveans, Deceased, Plaintiffs, -vJEAN MARC PETITCLERC, TRANSPORT LFL, INC., FLEXI-VAN LEASING, INC., Defendants. AVRIL ADAMS, as Administrator of the Estate of Nathalie Nicole Adams, Deceased, DEXTER DOTTIN AND AVRIL ADAMS, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Jonelle Averi Adams, Deceased, DEXTER DOTTIN, EURIS N. ADAMS and GURNEY G. ADAMS, individually, Plaintiffs, -vR F T
Civ. No. 8:06-CV-197 (DNH/RFT) LEAD CASE
Civ. No. 1:06-CV-1052 (DNH/RFT) JEAN MARC PETITCLERC, individually, TRANSPORT LFL, RELATED CASE INC., a Canadian Corporation, and FLEXI-VAN LEASING, INC., Defendants. KAREN HARRY, as Administratrix of the Estate of Sherylann John, Deceased, Plaintiff , -vJEAN MARC PETITCLERC, individually, TRANSPORT LFL, INC., a Canadian Corporation, EURIS ADAMS, AVRIL A. ADAMS, as Administratrix of the Estate of Nathalie Adams a/k/a Nathalie N. Adams a/k/a Natalie Adams, Deceased, and ESTATE OF NATHALIE N. ADAMS a/k/a Natalie Adams, Deceased, Defendants.
Civ. No. 8:07-CV-0063 (DNH/RFT) RELATED CASE
Page 2 of 5
APPEARANCES: FINKELSTEIN & PARTNERS, LLP Attorneys for Marallo Plaintiffs 436 Robinson Avenue Newburgh, New York 12550 BAUM, HEDLUND LAW FIRM Attorneys for Adams Plaintiffs 12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950 Los Angeles, California 90025-7106
R F T
OF COUNSEL: ELEANOR L. POLIMENI, ESQ.
PAUL J. HEDLUND, ESQ. CARA J. LUTHER, ESQ.
RAWLE, HENDERSON LAW FIRM Attorney for Defendants 140 Broadway, 46th Floor New York, New York 10005 LAURENCE JEFFREY WEINGARD LAW FIRM Attorney for Harry Plaintiffs 250 West 57th Street Suite 401 New York, New York 10107 RANDOLPH F. TREECE United States Magistrate Judge
JEFFREY A. SEGAL, ESQ.
LAURENCE J. WEINGARD, ESQ.
CONSOLIDATION ORDER Previously, this Court issued an Order consolidating case docket numbers 06-CV-197 (Marallo), 06-CV-1052 (Adams), and all other subsequent related cases for purposes of discovery and liability. Dkt. No 15, Order, dated Nov. 1, 2006. The Marallo case, 06-CV-197, was designated as the lead case. Id. This Consolidation Order anticipated the removal of a related New York State Supreme Court case to this District. Id. at n.1. In fact while the parties had commenced settlement discussions, and in order to facilitate a global settlement within these related cases, the Plaintiffs along with the Harry Plaintiffs agreed to enter into a stipulation removing the Harry case from -2-
Page 3 of 5
Nassau County Supreme Court to the Northern District of New York. See Dkt. Nos. 18, Text Order, dated Dec. 21, 2006, Text Order, dated Dec. 27, 2006, 19, Stipulation, & Order, dated Jan. 18, 2007. The Harry action was removed to the Northern District of New York on January 18, 2007. Case docket No. 07-CV-63, Dkt. No. 1, Not. of Removal. Notwithstanding previous orders, the Harry action, 07-CV-63, was never officially designated as a related case. On February 27, 2007, Defendants advised this Court that all Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement with them. Because the Plaintiffs are estates, each estate needs to receive approval from a Surrogate Court on the settlement-compromise, pursuant to New York Estate Powers and Trust Law § 5-4.6. Based upon those representations and allowing sufficient time to secure approvals from the respective New York Surrogate Courts, this Court stayed this consolidated law suit for ninety days and further directed each party to file a Status Report by June 8, 2007. Dkt. No. 24, Text Order, dated Mar. 8, 2007.
F R T
On May 14, 2007, Adams Plaintiffs, 06-CV-1052, filed a Sealed Petition for approval of their settlement with Defendants, Dkt. Nos. 25 & 27, which was approved by the District Judge. Dkt. Nos. 26 & 28. Immediately thereafter, the lead case, 06-CV-197 (Marallo) and related case 06-CV1052 (Adams) were terminated and closed, even though the Marallo settlement approval remains outstanding. Oral Order, dated May 15, 2007. The closing of the lead case may have been premature inasmuch as the Marallo Plaintiffs have encountered some difficulty in having the compromise of their case approved by a Surrogate Court. Dkt. No. 29, Marallo Status Report, dated June 6, 2007. Similarly, the Harry Plaintiffs have met some obstacles in processing their compromise before a Surrogate Court. Dkt. No. 30, Status Report, dated June 11, 2007. Both the Marallo and Harry Plaintiffs seek the Court's further indulgence, which we will readily grant.
Page 4 of 5
Accordingly, in order to clarify the various case dockets, it is hereby ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court remove the Closed Flag on case docket no. 06-CV197 and reopen it until such time all parties have submitted a petition seeking approval of any settlement; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court designate 07-CV-63(Harry) as a consolidated case and note 06-CV-197(Marallo) as the lead case. Further filings shall be placed on the lead case, 06CV-197; and it is further ORDERED, that all proceedings in these consolidated cases are STAYED until August 31, 2007; and it is further ORDERED, that the Marallo and Harry Plaintiffs shall file a Status Report with this Court by August 31, 2007, in the event they had not already filed their petition for approval of settlement. Because of the confidential nature of the settlement, said petitions shall be filed under seal; and it is further ORDERED, that the Clerk of the Court mail a copy of this Order to the parties and Laurence Jeffrey Weingard, Esq., 250 West 57th Street, Suite 401, New York, New York, 10107.
F T R
Page 5 of 5
IT IS SO ORDERED. June 14, 2007 Albany, New York
Date: May 4, 2005
Albany, New York
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?